Ethiopian ET302 Crash.

[oil_film_movies]

Originally Posted by fdcg27
The real question here is what control regime the A320 was in when ditched into the river.
Read QuagmireAirline's post in https://www.pprune.org/tech-log/594787-sully-s-flare-hudson-airbus-phugoid-feedback.html where he cites the Performance Study, etc., and, yes, Airbus's control laws in alpha-protect prevented a full flare and Sully did a good job of trying to get the fuselage to ideal ditching pitch angle. Sully did a lot of things right, I have no doubt. Also read the NTSB accident report for a better summary than I care to provide here. Summary is at: https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/accidentreports/pages/aar1003.aspx and Full report at: https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR1003.pdf

Originally Posted by fdcg27
His focus would have been upon the forced landing site and not precise speed control.

Originally Posted by DoubleWasp
Uneducated question: Was there something about that situation that would have not made it possible for him to maintain "Green Dot" speed?

It's true Sully may have been trying to find a spot on the river safe to land on. However, this would have been only necessary in the later stages, nearer the river. He came very close to a stall spin accident by flying nose-high (low airspeed), and Green Dot allows greatest range (efficiency). Green Dot is there for a reason, and they are trained to use it.
No, there is no excuse for not flying Green Dot.

 

[PimTac]

Was he trying to avoid river traffic or obstacles like bridges?

If none of us were there then we have no right to judge. The outcome was favorable. That is what matters.

 

[mbacfp]

Originally Posted by Astro14
I think we talked a bit about the 737 MAX flight control system in the Lion Air thread.

Too early to tell anything, but I will say this: if faced with a flight control problem, I'm not troubleshooting in the air. I will do what I need to get the airplane in a safe configuration to land and NO MORE.

I'm going to land it and let maintenance figure it out.

Back in the days when I had an ejection seat, I would fiddle with stuff in the air and give our guys all the data points and analysis they needed to fix the airplane the first time.

These days, I don't do that.

Lion Air pilots did that...they fiddled with the MACS over and over to try and get it to work. The previous flight, the mishap airplane had a problem, and the crew did some in flight troubleshooting and continued on to destination.

Crazy.

I think that in the course of investigation and cause, that we, of BITOG, will cover a lot of the same concepts we did in the Lion Air thread:

https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4908879/1

Limits of flight control authority, ability to over-ride systems, systems engineering philosophy, training, startle response, judgement...


I remember the terrible Alaska 262 crash into the Pacific Ocean off Anacapa. Believe it was an MD-80 and they lost vertical control of the airplane...the jackscrew assembly broke in the vertical stabilizer. It later came out that the crew continued get the trim feature to work while in flight (which went against what Alaska told them to do) and hastened the jackscrew failure while in flight. So sad when these things happen.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Boeing software upgrade info.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/ne...7-max-sources/ar-BBUPcMh?ocid=spartandhp

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted by oil_film_movies
Originally Posted by Astro14
I think your point is ridiculous. Sully "failed" to maintain the proper airspeed? When? What's your source?
FDR plots, of course. Its all been public for a long time. Surprised I have to tell you that. Weird response. .... Still whining? Read the NTSB report before taking swipes at the truth. Geeez.

Originally Posted by Astro14
Who are you to criticize his performance?
Lots of other pilots & flight control engineers have. Its obvious basic airmanship says to fly the right airspeed.

Originally Posted by Astro14
What flying experience do you have? How many hours in the A-320?
Plenty enough to know one should fly airspeed. You don't need an A320 to understand and use speed-on-pitch basic fundamental techniques and Green Dot. Wow, you're in weird attack mode today. Chill & think a little.


I did chill.

I did think.

I went back and re-read the entire NTSB report on 1549.

Your point is, at best, a specious oversimplification.

Look, Sully got 10-15 knots off green dot during the initial turn and assesment.

So what?

He managed an incredibly difficult, complex, untested, surprise situation with aplomb. He made every correct decision and everyone on board lived as a result of rapid, proper decision-making.

To value airspeed finesse over that is simply ridiculous.

The NTSB (and you) failed to examine the effect that changing control laws, low hydraulic pressure (given the engine RPM and hydraulic loads as the flaps were extended) and response to TCAS and obstacle warnings had on fine aircraft control. That's a glaring omission in analysis on both your parts.

I've flown the Sully (and AF447) scenarios in the A-320 simulator. The level-D full motion simulator at my airline, when I was an Airbus pilot. Neither scenario is as simple as lay people like to think. The airplane doesn't respond normally, or even well, to pitch input when the engines are rolled back, as they were in Sully's case.

So, in addition to making every decision correctly, Sully was flying an airplane that was not responding normally.

Your "speed-on-pitch fundamental techniques" criticism falls completely flat when the airplane isn't trimming properly, or responding normally, and the pilot in command is properly focused on much more critical issues.

 

[Cujet]

Originally Posted by Astro14


But it takes a pilot to do that, not a child of the Magenta...


Hahahahaha I wonder how many here will get that joke...

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by Cujet
Originally Posted by Astro14


But it takes a pilot to do that, not a child of the Magenta...


Hahahahaha I wonder how many here will get that joke...


I had to look it up for sure. Found this:
https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/children-of-the-magenta-automation-paradox-pt-1/

 

[DeepFriar]

Ethiopia News item today (apologies if someone has already contributed it): Pitch trim jackscrew found to have been in the fully down position. Just a quote, can't vouch for accuracy.

Cheers

Larry

 

[DoubleWasp]

That was kinda where my thoughts were heading, but I lacked the expertise to lay them out that well.

I think the real point is: Who would do as well or better in Sully's position?

Holes can be poked in Sully's performance, but I think the real qualifying level a man requires to play Judge on Sully would be to have performed an equivalent feat with less errors.

But is Sully "one to talk" with regards to pilots and plane crashes? Again, find me someone more qualified than a pilot who was put in a situation that ought to have ended with hundreds of deaths and everyone lived. If not him, then who is there of greater qualifications?

 

[PimTac]

Originally Posted by DoubleWasp
That was kinda where my thoughts were heading, but I lacked the expertise to lay them out that well.

I think the real point is: Who would do as well or better in Sully's position?

Holes can be poked in Sully's performance, but I think the real qualifying level a man requires to play Judge on Sully would be to have performed an equivalent feat with less errors.

But is Sully "one to talk" with regards to pilots and plane crashes? Again, find me someone more qualified than a pilot who was put in a situation that ought to have ended with hundreds of deaths and everyone lived. If not him, then who is there of greater qualifications?




If I had to choose between Captain Sullenberger or CNN's self avowed aviation specialist Richard Quest, I would go with Sully every time.

 

[BusyLittleShop]

Talk...talk...talk... you always have your talkers on how to Dead
Stick Ditch and then you have your doers who have performed
a true masterful Dead Stick Ditch...

 

[George Bynum]

Originally Posted by Astro14
I think your point is ridiculous. Sully "failed" to maintain the proper airspeed? When? What's your source?


First, I am not a pilot. I've 2 friends who were serious, competitive, sailplane pilots, both CFI-G. I really appreciate the technology.

While I've not seen it mentioned, Sully was also certified in gliders and had his CFI-G. ___I___ attribute his success to stick and rudder skills from that flying, and recognition that maximum distance is attainable at speeds nearer stall.

It was, IMO, his SKILL!

 

[AdmdeVilleneuve]

This article headlined: "Flawed analysis, failed oversight: How Boeing and the FAA certified the suspect 737 MAX flight control system" by The Seattle Times' aerospace reporter Dominic Gates, appeared today (3/17/19) above the fold in the print edition and currently is the primary story at seattletimes.com. Long article, but worth the time if you have an interest in the development of the 737 MAX series and MCAS.
https://www.seattletimes.com/busine...system-implicated-in-the-lion-air-crash/

 

[Mr Nice]

I can't comment about Spartan grads, past my time. Whenever somebody flunked out of my school, if they didn't just give it up, they ended up attending Embry Riddle. I'm sure the school has improved since then - after all they are ABET accredited now

I thought Embry Riddle produced quality civilian pilots ?

I'm not expecting Blue Angel quality.... but decent pilots.

 

[PimTac]

Originally Posted by Mr Nice

I can't comment about Spartan grads, past my time. Whenever somebody flunked out of my school, if they didn't just give it up, they ended up attending Embry Riddle. I'm sure the school has improved since then - after all they are ABET accredited now

I thought Embry Riddle produced quality civilian pilots ?

I'm not expecting Blue Angel quality.... but decent pilots.




That was my thinking as well. They are not the cheapest school.

I have a good friend whose son graduated from ER. He flies for United.

 

[wensteph]

My intent is not to take anything away from Sullenberger's skill level, his passengers are alive because of it. But sometimes good fortune plays a part. Check the tide tables and wind when he ditched. Slack tide and little to no wind. Opposing tide and some wind that would have thrown a chop on the Hudson and the outcome could have been much different.

 

[ArrestMeRedZ]

Originally Posted by PimTac

Quote

I can't comment about Spartan grads, past my time. Whenever somebody flunked out of my school, if they didn't just give it up, they ended up attending Embry Riddle. I'm sure the school has improved since then - after all they are ABET accredited now

I thought Embry Riddle produced quality civilian pilots ?

I'm not expecting Blue Angel quality.... but decent pilots.




That was my thinking as well. They are not the cheapest school.

I have a good friend whose son graduated from ER. He flies for United.


If you go back a bit further, I did comment that ER was a good school for pilots. The other comments were addressing their engineering programs, hence the ABET reference. Sorry I wasn't clear, and in no way am I attempting to disparage their pilot training program.

 

[Danh]

Originally Posted by JustN89
Originally Posted by Astro14
Originally Posted by Exhaustgases
Questions that I'd like to ask someone that really knows. When you turn off any thing on that instrument panel or on the yoke, does that cause a relay to completely disconnect the power from what ever it is you are commanding off? Now I will answer that, NO. Maybe on an old DC3 or DC7 it did, now a computer runs or controls all inputs from pilots, just like many new cars, the driver has control over nothing, unless he has installed a huge disconnect switch that turns off all power feeding everything. All new passenger aircraft are fly by wire, that is by computer control. There are no longer mechanical connections to the control surfaces that link to a control that the pilot operates independent from the computer system. So there are a few not so nice things that can happen.


You've oversimplified a complex topic and really don't know what happens, or how a modern airplane works.

Particularly the 737.

It has a direct, mechanical connection between yoke and elevator.

It can be flown after the MCAS is turned off.

But it takes a pilot to do that, not a child of the Magenta...

100% accurate.

MCAS controls the electronic trim, which can be turned off and manually trimmed by experienced pilots who know what they're doing. This is why, in my opinion, U.S. based carriers (Canada too) are still comfortable operating this aircraft. Nowhere else in the world will you find a more thoroughly trained and experienced population of pilots. If you find that hard to believe, find one U.S. carrier that has an FO flying the MAX with 200 hours under his belt. I don't mean to be offensive, but there's a reason why we haven't had serious incidents involving the MAX in more developed (aviation-wise) countries.


Today reports are that there are "similarities" between the Ethiopian and Lion Air crashes. Even assuming the MCAS system was involved in both, I believe there is a relatively simple way for it to be disengaged in these situations. And this procedure was re-emphasized to operators after the Lion Air crash.

Given the co-pilot of the Ethiopian flight had 200 total hours (!) of flying experience it isn't hard to imagine the pilot wrestling with the controls and shouting at the co-pilot to disengage MCAS. Maybe the co-pilot didn't know how, maybe there were other factors, but despite system imperfections, this may have been a very avoidable accident. As I understand it, this is not unlike runaway stabilizer trim, which can happen in any large aircraft and is part of pilot training.

Speculation is not worth much, but the rush to judgement seems a bit one-sided so far.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by AdmdeVilleneuve
This article headlined: "Flawed analysis, failed oversight: How Boeing and the FAA certified the suspect 737 MAX flight control system" by The Seattle Times' aerospace reporter Dominic Gates, appeared today (3/17/19) above the fold in the print edition and currently is the primary story at seattletimes.com. Long article, but worth the time if you have an interest in the development of the 737 MAX series and MCAS.

https://www.seattletimes.com/busine...system-implicated-in-the-lion-air-crash/


From the article:
"After the Lion Air crash, 737 MAX pilots around the world were notified about the existence of MCAS and what to do if the system is triggered inappropriately."

So after the first crash Boeing was aware of the possible MCAS flaws and was working on an enhancement solution. Boeing also informed pilots around the world on what to do if the system went haywire (ie, turn it off and fly manually). So with the Ethiopian crash it seems like a bad mix of pilot inexperience not being able to recolonize and handle the situation even after they were apparently informed of the safety concern.

 

[fdcg27]

...and yet the MAX is now grounded everywhere around the world while the FAA and the four US operators are facing harsh criticism for not having grounded it sooner.
Most aircraft accidents involve errors on the part of the crew often in response to an unanticipated event.
Safety is always a priority but it isn't the only factor to be considered in commercial operations.
Were safety really the only consideration, there'd be no big twins operating hours away from the nearest suitable alternate nor would it have been legal for a BA crew to have flown a 744 transcon and then TATL on three engines.
It is perhaps telling that First World operators have had no problems with the MAX.
There may or may not be a fundamental problem with Boeing's implementation of an automated system, but there is also likely a training and crew qualifications problem with some of the operators.
The MAX appears to take this vintage Boeing design to the edge of what can be developed from it.
I'd still find it hard to believe that Boeing would offer and the FAA certify an aircraft with deadly handling characteristics in certain flight regimes as a standard feature.